Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC
OF THEPHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
- versus -
ESTATE
OF ALFONSO LIM, SR., ALFONSO LIM, JR.,TEODORO Q. PENA, FERDINAND E. MARCOS
(now deceased and Represented by his Estate/Heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, TAGGAT
INDUSTRIES, INC., PAMPLONA REDWOOD VENEER, INC., SOUTHERN PLYWOOD, WESTERN
CAGAYAN LUMBER, ACME PLYWOOD, VETERAN WOODWORK, INC., SIERRA MADRE WOOD
INDUSTRIES, INC., and TROPICAL PHILIPPINES WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Respondent.
|
|
G.R.
No. 164800
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,*
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
Promulgated:
July 22,
2009
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, the Republic of the
Philippines assails and seeks to nullify the Resolution[1] dated March 28, 2003 of the Sandiganbayan,
as effectively reiterated in another resolution of June 18, 2004, which denied
petitioner’s motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in
Civil Case No. 0030, entitled Republic
v. Alfonso Lim, et al.,[2] a suit to recover ill-gotten or
unexplained wealth.
The Facts
On October
2, 1991, in Civil Case No. 0030,
the Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG), filed before the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, an Amended Complaint for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution, and damages. In it, the Republic averred that Alfonso
Lim, Sr. (now deceased) and Alfonso Lim, Jr., acting by themselves and/or in unlawful collusion with Ferdinand
E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, and taking undue advantage of their
relationship, influence, and connection with the latter, embarked upon devices
and stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Republic and
the Filipino people. Among other acts, the Lims were alleged to have:
(a) actively
solicited and obtained, upon the personal behest of [the Marcoses], with the
active collaboration of Teodoro
Q. Peña, who was then Minister of Natural Resources, additional timber
concession in favor of Taggat Industries, Inc. (TAGGAT) and Pamplona Redwood
Veneer, Inc. (PAMPLONA), corporations beneficially held and controlled by
Alfonso Lim and Alfonso Lim, Jr., which, in addition to other areas already
awarded to TAGGAT and PAMPLONA, resulted in their concession holdings in excess
of the allowable limits prescribed under Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973
Constitution;
(b) actively
solicited and obtained, upon the personal behest of [the Marcoses], a
management contract in favor of TAGGAT to operate and manage the logging
concessions of Veterans Woodwork, Inc. (VETERANS), Sierra Madre Wood
Industries, Inc. (SIERRA MADRE), and Tropical Philippines Wood Industries, Inc.
(TROPICAL) over and above the objections of VETERANS;
(c) obtained
a permit to cut down a certain number of Narra and Amaciga trees, and, on the
very same day, was likewise given an authorization by Ferdinand E. Marcos to export
the same, in violation of existing ban against cutting and export of the
aforesaid trees;
(d) obtained,
in favor of PAMPLONA, a syndicated loan in the amount of millions of US dollars
from a consortium of international banks, secured by the guarantee of the
National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a subsidiary of the
Philippine National Bank; and in view of the default by PAMPLONA in the payment
of its principal and/or interest amortizations, the loan was converted, under
the debt rescheduling arrangement between Republic and its foreign creditor
banks, into a public sector obligation of Republic, to the grave and
irreparable damage of the Republic and the Filipino people.
The Republic also alleged that the
foregoing acts, singly or collectively, constituted grave and gross abuse of
official position and authority, flagrant breach of public trust and fiduciary
obligations, brazen abuse of right and power, unjust enrichment, and violation
of the Constitution and laws of the Republic to the grave and irreparable
damage to it and its citizens.
As its main prayer, the Republic asked for
the reconveyance of all funds and property impressed with constructive trust in
favor of the Republic and the Filipino people, “as well as funds and other
property acquired with [respondents’] abuse of right and power and through
unjust enrichment, including
but not limited to the properties listed in Annex “A” of the Complaint together
with the accruing income or increment from date of acquisition until final
judgment.”
The properties listed in the said Annex
“A”[3] consist––besides the Lims’ assets
sequestered in accordance wth Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2, Series of 1986––of
the assets and other properties of Lim, Sr., as follows:
1. a
parcel of land with TCT No. 2981 (Lot A),
located at Barrio Birinayan, Talisay, Batangas;
2. a parcel of raw land with TCT No.
11750 (Lot 8-C-53) located at
Muzon, San Isidro, Angono, Rizal;
3. a
parcel of raw land with TCT No. 11749 (Lot 8-C-51)
located at Muzon, San Isidro,
Angono. Rizal;
4. a
parcel of land with TCT No. 11728 (Lot 8-C-9)
located at Muzon, San Isidro,
Angono, Rizal;
5. a
parcel of land with TCT No. 11732 (Lot 8-C-17)
located at Muzon, San Isidro,
Angono, Rizal;
6. a
parcel of agricultural land with TCT No. 11728 (Lot 8-C-9) located at Muzon, San Isidro, Angono, Rizal;
7. a
parcel of agricultural land with TCT No. 11727 (Lot 8-C-7) located at Muzon, San Isidro, Angono, Rizal;
8. a
parcel of residential land with TCT No. 315 located at Maharlika, Tagaytay City;
9. a
parcel of agricultural/residential land with TCT No. 157570 located at
Berinayan, Laurel, Batangas;
10. a
parcel of land and building in the name of SIERRA MADRE as reported by Task
Force SEAFRONT, Nov. 20, 1986;
11. a parcel
of land and building in the name of PAMPLONA as reported by Task Force
SEAFRONT, November 20, 1986;
12. Contigous
[13] parcels of land located at Claveria, Cagayan in the name of TAGGAT
Industries, Inc. as reported by Task Force SEAFRONT, November 7, 1987:
x x x x
13. a
parcel of agricultural land in the name of TAGGAT with OCT No. O-1108 (S) Lot No.
1195;
14. a
parcel of commercial land in the name of TAGGAT with TCT No. 78732 located at Romualdez Street, Paco, Manila;
15. buildings
and improvements in the name of TAGGAT erected on OCT No. 0-1104, 0-11017,
0-1109;
16. buildings
in the name of TAGGAT erected on TCT No. 78732; Paco, Manila.
[OTHER PROPERTIES]
A. Shares
of Stocks in:
|
1. Taggat Industries, Inc.
(TAGGAT)
|
1350, Romualdez Street, Paco, Manila
|
|
2. Pamplona Redwood Veneer,
Inc. (PAMPLONA)
|
1350, Romualdez Street, Paco, Manila
|
|
3. Sierra Madre Wood
Industries, Inc. (SIERRA MADRE)
|
79 Doña Hemady corner 13th St., New Manila, Quezon City
|
|
4. Veterans Woodworks, Inc.
(VETERANS)
|
79 Doña Hemady corner 13th St., New Manila, Quezon City
|
|
5. Southern Plywood Corporation
(SPC)
|
5th Floor Jardine Davies Bldg., 222 Sen. J. Puyat Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila
|
|
6. Western Cagayan Lumber (WCL)
|
Jardine Davies Building, 222 Sen. J. Puyat Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila
|
B. Property, Plant and Equipment
x x x x
C. Aircraft [2 units]
x x x x
D. Current Assets [as reported]
x x x x
E. Investments and Other Assets
1. Due
from affiliated companies, TAGGAT, as reported
2. Investment
in Stocks, TAGGAT, as reported
3. Deferred
Charges and Other Assets, TAGGAT, as reported
F. Bank Accounts
1. PAMPLONA Accounts
a. The Consolidated Bank and Trust Co.
b. Equitable Banking Corporation
2. TAGGAT Acccounts
a. The Consolidated Bank and Trust Co,
b. Philippine National Bank
c. Equitable Banking Corporation
d. Philippine Banking Corporation
e. Allied Banking Corporation
G. Other
1. Frozen Bank Accounts and Other Assets
of Alfonso Lim, Sr., Alfonso Lim, Jr. and Lawrence Lim
Meanwhile, Lim, Sr. passed away. On June 22, 1998, his estate filed a
motion to lift the sequestration[4] over certain real properties[5] contending that the PCGG impleaded him
owing to his alleged association with former Pres. Marcos. The estate would
add, however, that Lim, Sr. secured title over almost all of his real
properties thus sequestered way back in 1948, long before the Marcoses came to
power.
To the motion to lift, the Republic interposed an
opposition, alleging that the sequestered lots and titles stand as security for
the satisfaction of any judgment the Republic may obtain against the estate of
Lim, Sr., his family, or his group of companies.
By Resolution[6] dated March
17, 2001, the Sandiganbayan lifted the sequestration order in question on the
strength of the following pertinent premises, to wit:
The
sequestration of some of the real properties of movant-defendant [estate of
Lim, Sr.] is a remedial measure resorted to in order to preserve these
properties along with others alleged to have taken illegally x x x, and “in
order to prevent the same from disappearance, destruction, loss or dissipation
and /or to foil acts that may render moot and academic the efforts to recover
the aforesaid alleged “ill-gotten wealth”. However, the pertinent provisions of
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are explicit in saying that the properties
that are supposed to be “sequestered” are those x x x amassed during the regime
of the deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos and not before or later thereto. x
x x
In time, the Republic sought but was later
denied reconsideration of the sequestration-lifting resolution of the
Sandiganbayan.[7]
Meanwhile, after presenting its
evidence in the main case, the Republic filed its Formal Offer of Evidence
dated October 8, 2001.[8] On December
5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a terse order admitting all the documentary
exhibits of the Republic consisting of Exhibits
“A” to “G,” inclusive of their submarkings.[9]
The following incidents/events then transpired:
(1) Sometime in January 2002, the estate
of Lim, Sr., Ruthie Lim, and two others, as defendants a quo, filed a Demurrer to Evidence[10] dated January
14, 2002, on the ground of either irrelevancy or immateriality of the
Republic’s evidence. As argued, the same evidence did not prove or disprove
that the demurring defendants, on their own or in concert with the Marcoses,
amassed ill-gotten wealth. Lim,
Jr. later filed a Manifestation[11] adopting
the demurrer to evidence of the estate of Lim, Sr., et al.
(2) On July 4, 2002,
the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration of the graft
court’s resolution lifting the sequestration order.[12]
(3) In an obvious bid to counter the effects of the lifting
of the sequestration, the Republic, on September
9, 2002, filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment[13] against respondents in the amount of its
claim. The Republic alleged
that respondent Lims “were guilty of fraud in incurring various legal
obligations which the present action has been brought,” by “taking undue
advantage of their relationship, influence and connection with the [Marcoses]”
to unjustly enriched themselves to the prejudice of the Republic.
Except for one, all the other
respondents belonging to the Lim group filed their respective comment or
opposition to the Republic’s motion for a writ of attachment.
(4) On March
28, 2003, the Sandiganbayan, stating that bare allegations of the commission of
fraud by respondents in incurring the aforesaid obligations are not sufficient
for the granting of the writ of preliminary attachment, denied, via a
Resolution,[14] the corresponding motion.
In due time, the Republic interposed a
motion seeking reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan’s March 28, 2003 denial action.[15]
(5) By Resolution dated July 17, 2003, the
Sandiganbayan denied respondents’ demurrer to evidence.[16]
Forthwith, the estate of Lim, Sr., Taggat
Industries, Inc. (TAGGAT), and Pamplona Redwood Veneer, Inc. (PAMPLONA),
followed later by Lim, Jr., respectfully moved for reconsideration of the July 17, 2003 Resolution.
(6) On June
18, 2004, the Sandiganbayan resolved to affirm the denial of the respondents’
demurrer to evidence. It also denied in its March
28, 2003 resolution the
Republic’s motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.[17]
Hence, this recourse is before us.
The Issues
The two interrelated issues petitioner
Republic tenders boils down to: whether the Sandiganbayan, in the light of the
denial of respondents’ demurrer to evidence, acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not considering that the
evidence already on record support the issuance of a writ or preliminary
attachment.
The Republic contends that the pieces of
evidence offered before and admitted by the Sandiganbayan provide sufficient
basis for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. Thus, the graft
court, as the Republic argues, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction in denying the writ of preliminary injunction by not
considering the evidence already on record and in ruling contrary to its
findings and conclusions when it denied respondents’ demurrer to evidence.
Respondents, on the other hand, reiterate
their position on the absence of evidence of fraud, as required under Section
1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which would justify the issuance of the
desired writ. In this regard, they reproduced what the Sandiganbayan said in
its March 28, 2003 resolution on the matter of fraud,
thus: “These are general
averments devoid of the particulars of time, persons, etc., in support of the
serious allegation that [respondents] are guilty of fraud in incurring these
alleged legal obligation. Bare
allegations that [respondents] have been guilty of fraud in incurring the
aforesaid obligations are not sufficient for the granting of the writ of
attachment.”[18]
The Court’s Ruling
An assiduous review of the antecedent
facts and factual findings and conclusions of the Sandiganbayan relative to the
denial of demurrer to evidence and the writ of preliminary injunction compels
this Court to grant the instant petition.
Nature
of Preliminary Attachment
Attachment is an ancillary remedy applied
for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon
relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action;[19] it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to
the main action. As such, it is available during the pendency of the action
which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights
and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final
judgment in the case. As a corollary
proposition, an order granting an application for a writ of preliminary
attachment cannot, owing to the incidental or auxiliary nature of such order,
be the subject of an appeal independently of the main action.[20]
The instant case is one of those mentioned
in Sec. 1, Rule 57 of the Rules, specifically the section’s paragraph “d,”
wherein a writ
of preliminary attachment may be issued. It provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds
upon which attachment may issue.––A plaintiff or any proper party may, at
the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter, have the property of
the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment
that may be recovered in the following cases:
x x x x
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of
fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action
is brought, or in concealing or disposing of the property for the taking,
detention or conversion of which the action is brought;
For a writ of attachment to
issue under the above-quoted rule, the applicant must sufficiently show the
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud.
Fraud may be
defined as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act, or a willful omission,
knowing and intending the effects which naturally and necessarily arise from
such act or omission.[21] In its general sense, fraud is deemed to
comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts and omissions and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence
justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and
unconscientious advantage is taken of another.[22] Fraud
is also described as embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can
device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over
another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all
surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is
cheated.[23] Fraudulent,
on the other hand, connotes intentionally wrongful, dishonest, or unfair.[24]
In the case at bar, the Republic has, to
us, sufficiently discharged the burden of demonstrating the commission of fraud
committed by respondents Lims as a condition sine
qua non for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment. The main supporting proving document is the
Republic’s Exhibit “B” which the Sandiganbayan unqualifiedly
admitted in evidence. And the fraud or fraudulent scheme principally came in
the form of Lim, Sr. holding and/or operating logging concessions which far
exceeded the allowable area prescribed under the 1973 Constitution.
A cursory evaluation of the Republic’s Exhibit “B”––the Decision dated
November 20, 1986 of then Minister Ernesto M. Maceda of the Ministry Natural
Resources (MNR)[25] in an unnumbered MNR case entitled IN RE: VIOLATIONS OF VETERANS WOODWORKS, INC. AND ALFONSO LIM,
SR. AND TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC., canceling the logging concessions[26] enjoyed by the Lim Group––yields the
following undisputed relevant data:
(1) Lim, Sr., through the seven (7)
respondent corporations, had been holding/operating/managing several timber
concessions with a total area of 533,880 hectares, more or less, which was far
in excess of the 100,000 hectares allowed in the 1973 Constitution;[27]
(2) Since a wide expanse of forest lands
were in between the different Lim concessions, the Lims had effectively access
to a total of 633,880 hectares of forests; and
(3) Other violation of the constitutional
prohibition applies also to three (3) corporations (Acme Plywood Co., Inc.,
Western Cagayan Lumber Co., Inc., and Southern Plywood Corporation).
As is made abundantly clear in the
aforesaid Maceda decision, the MNR revoked or canceled the concessions or
timber license agreements (TLAs) of Lim, Sr. on the principal ground that the
timber award was made in utter violation of the Constitutional limitations on
the granting of logging concessions.[28] The
same decision also indicated that Lim, Sr.’s “influence, power and strong
connection with the past [i.e., Marcos] dispensation”[29] explained his receipt of special
privileges and concessions unfettered by constitutional constraints. So
influential was Lim, Sr. that he and TAGGAT and sister companies received
certain timber-related benefits without the knowledge, let alone approval, of
MNR.[30] Lim, Sr. doubtless utilized to the hilt
his closeness to the Marcoses to amass what may prima facie be considered as illegal
wealth.
Scheme to Circumvent Constitutional
Prohibition
Sec. 11 of Article XIV of the governing 1973 Constitution
states that “no private corporation or association may hold by lease,
concession, license, or permit, timber or forest lands and other timber or
forest resources in excess of one hundred thousand hectares.” Complementing this provision was
Chapter I, No. 3(e) of Forestry Administrative Order (FAO) No. 11 prohibiting
any individual, corporation, partnership, or association from acquiring a
timber license or license agreement covering an area in excess of 100,000
hectares. Likewise, Chapter
I, No. 3(d) of FAO No. 11 states that no individual corporation, partnership,
or association who is already a holder of an ordinary timber license or license
agreement nor any member of the family, incorporator, director, stockholder, or
member of such individual, corporation, partnership, or association shall be
allowed to acquire a new timber license or license agreement or any interest or
participation in it.
The constitutional and statutory limitations on allowable
area leases and concessions were obviously meant to prevent the concentration
of large tracts of public land in the hands of a single individual. But as the
Office of the Solicitor General aptly observed, citing the Maceda decision: “For
one Filipino out of 55 million to own, operate or in one form [or] another be
financially interested in more than 600,000 hectares out of a total forest land
of 14 million hectares is certainly unfair, unacceptable and unconstitutional
by any standard.”[31]
Lim, Sr., as earlier stated, had been
holding/operating/managing several timber concessions through the seven (7)
logging companies for an aggregate area of 533,880 hectares, as follows:
|
Name of Corporation
|
TLA No.
|
Concession Area
|
|
(1) Taggat Industries, Inc.
|
071
|
107,845 has.
|
|
(2) Pamplona Redwood Veneer
Co., Inc.
|
074
|
118,315 has
|
|
(3) Southern Plywood Corp. (one
share)
|
321
|
71,300 has.
|
|
(4) Western Cagayan Lumber Co.,
Inc. (one share)
|
073
|
69,675 has.
|
|
(5) Acme Plywood & Veneer
Co,, Inc. (one share)
|
075
|
84,525 has.
|
|
(6) Veterans Woodworks, Inc.
|
|
63,179 has.
|
|
(7) Sierra Madre Wood Ind., Inc.
|
345
|
19,050 has.
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
533,880 has.
|
The Maceda decision stressed that Lim, Sr.
had one share each in the three corporations, namely: (1) Acme Plywood and
Veneer Co., Inc. (ACME); (2)
Western Cagayan Lumber Co., Inc. (WESTERN); and (3) Southern Plywood
Corporation (SPC). These
corporations, the decision added, likewise violated the Constitution
considering that Lim, Sr. had control over them as owner-founder. To cover the constitutional violation,
Lim, Jr. was used as a front and made to appear as President of the mentioned
three corporations.[32]
There can be no quibbling that MNR
correctly revoked/canceled all the timber concessions of Lim, Sr., namely: TLA
No. 071 (TAGGAT), TLA No. 074 (PAMPLONA), TLA No. 321 (SPC), TLA No. 073
(WESTERN), and TLA No. 075 (ACME). As it were, the TLAs of TAGGAT and PAMPLONA each exceeded the 100,000-hectare
threshold prescribed by the 1973 Constitution. Initially, the execution and
granting of those timber license agreements were already tainted with
fraud. The Lims resorted to their close connection with the Marcoses for
the approval of the timber license agreements and the Lims were given access
effectively to a total 633,880 hectares in violation of the 1973 Constitution
and FAO No. 11.
Indeed, the Lims’ availment and enjoyment
of logging concessions grossly in excess of constitutional limits amount to a
voluntary execution of a
wrongful act, if not a serious breach of legal duty. By their acts, the Lims veritably
defrauded and cheated the Filipino people––the ultimate beneficiaries of the
country’s natural resources.
Denial of Demurrer to
Evidence Indicative
of the Commission of
Fraudulent Acts
The evidence that clearly supports the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment sought by Republic is already on
record before the Sandiganbayan. As a matter of fact, the anti-graft court
already ruled and considered that the evidence so far presented by the Republic
had been sufficient to support a finding that respondents had committed illegal
and fraudulent acts against the Republic and the Filipino people. This was the tenor of the
Sandiganbayan’s resolution denying the respondents’ demurrer to evidence.
A demurrer to evidence
is defined as “an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect
that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law,
whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.”[33] The
party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a
verdict.[34]
In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court
is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof
to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.[35] And when the court denies the demurrer, the
defendant has to present countervailing evidence against the evidence adduced
by the plaintiff.[36]
In the case at bar, when the Sandiganbayan
denied respondents’ demurrer to evidence, it in effect ruled that the evidence
presented by the prosecution is, absent a countervailing evidence, prima facie sufficient to support an adverse
verdict against them for amassing illegal wealth. The Sandiganbayan, in its
underlying resolution of July 17,
2003 denying the demurrer, wrote:
The
Demurrer is denied.
To
support the charges, plaintiff introduced, among others, Exhibit “B”, a decision dated
November 20, 1986 by then DENR Secretary Ernesto Maceda which, after hearing,
revoked or cancelled the respective Timber License Agreements (TLAs) of
defendants Alfonso Lim, Sr., Taggat Industries, Inc., Pamplona Redwood Veneer,
[etc.] after an investigation found that the same entities held timber
concessions in excess of what was allowed by the Constitution. The same
decision likewise made certain findings of facts that x x x Lim, Sr. enjoyed
close association with former President Ferdinand E. Marcos as a consequence of
which the latter granted x x x Lim, Sr. special privileges and concessions in
gross violation of the Constitution. In addition, Exhibit “E” indicates that x x x Taggat
Industries, chiefly owned by defendant Lim Sr., using his close association
with then President Marcos, acquired and controlled three (3) other logging
firms, namely Veteran Woodworks, Inc., Tropical Philippine Wood Industries,
Inc., and Sierra Madre Wood Industries, Inc. x x x. This resulted to the
acquisition of defendant Lim Sr. of excessive number of timber concessions.
Given the circumstances, this Court cannot simply brush
aside the foregoing considering that what the defendants-movants proffer are
mere blanket denial of the charges. In demurrer to evidence, the party demurring challenges the
sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing
upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required
to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the
indictment. Applying the said ruling in the instant case, there exists prima
facie evidence on record x x x to support or sustain the charges against the
defendants-movants. There is therefore a further need on the part of the
defendants-movants to submit the proof to the contrary other than their mere
simple disclaimer.[37]
Sandiganbayan Did Not
Consider
Evidence in Denying
Attachment
Given the foregoing pronouncement
from the Sandiganbayan, the Court is completely at a loss to understand the
graft court’s denial of the Republic’s plea for the ancillary remedy of preliminary
attachment. The wrongful act––the fraud perpetuated by Lim Sr. and/or his
corporations on the Republic––is written over or easily deducible from the
adverted Maceda decision and Exhibit
“E.” While fraud
cannot be presumed, it need not be proved by direct evidence and it can well be
inferred from attendant circumstances.[38] Withal, we cannot but agree with the
Republic’s contention that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of its motion for a writ
of preliminary attachment constitutes grave and patent abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
A scrutiny of the above-quoted July 17,
2003 Resolution readily shows that the Sandiganbayan indeed considered the
evidence presented and offered by the Republic, specifically Exhibits “B” and “E” which convincingly show the finding
that respondents’ acts were tainted with fraud in the acquisition of the
logging concessions due to their close association with the Marcoses.
It is incongruous, therefore, for the
Sandiganbayan to deny the writ of preliminary attachment when the pieces of
evidence on record which it used and based its findings and conclusions in
denying the demurrer to evidence were the same ones which demonstrate the
propriety of the writ of preliminary attachment. Clearly, the Republic has complied with and satisfied the legal obligation to show the specific
acts constitutive of the alleged fraud committed by respondents. The denial of the prayed writ, thus,
evidently constitutes grave abuse
of discretion on the part of Sandiganbayan. After all, “attachment is a mere
provisional remedy to ensure the safety and preservation of the thing attached
until the plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have
such property applied to its satisfaction.”[39] Indeed, the properties of respondents sought to be subjected to the ancillary
writ of preliminary attachment are not only in danger of being lost but should
be placed under custodia legis to answer for any liabilities that may
be adjudged against them in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated March 28, 2003 and June 18, 2004 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the 2nd Division of Sandiganbayan is hereby DIRECTED to ISSUE the Writ of Preliminary Attachment
prayed for by the Republic. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice